Talk:Mark II
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
An entry from Mark II appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 22 November 2006. |
 |
 |
Mark II was a good article candidate, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. Once the objections listed below are addressed, the article can be renominated. You may also seek a review of the decision if you feel there was a mistake.
Date of review: 21 December 2006 |
[edit] To do
- Receivers used on telescope
- Science done
Mike Peel 17:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Could be clearer
I think the organization could be clearer. For example, MERLIN is mentioned in at least four different paragraphs. In reading it, I found the relationship between this instrument and MERLIN a little confusing. ike9898 16:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comments. I've now rearranged the article to simplify things; MERLIN is now mentioned in only two paragraphs. Is that better? Mike Peel 17:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Failed GA
Mike Peel listed this article in WP:GAC on 18 December 2006, but there is no {{GAnominee}} template in this talk, so I assumed this article is a GA candidate. Otherwise, please remove this review and the corresponding {{FailedGA}} template.
As of [1], the article during this review, I failed this article for Good Article status. My major concern is the inline citation, per WP:WIAGA criterion 2.c. The nominator alleged that putting inline citation is OTT in this short article, but inline citation is used not based on how long the article is. It is used to to avoid original research, to help its verifiability and to ensure neutral point of view. These are the three pillars of Wikipedia and it should be supported by all WP articles.
Furthermore, I don't see that the article stuck on its current length. The scope of the article can be expanded more. What is the history of the subject? Are there some notable events coming from this place? Who is running it now? Could you pelase elaborate more of its daily usage? And as a layman, please explain more in layman words about the technical details.
Therefore, at the moment, I cannot grant the GA status for this article. Please go dig for more reliable sources and expand this article. Whenever the article is ready and it has fullfil all of the WP:WIAGA requirements, then the editors can renominate it again. As always, if editors feel disagree about my review here, then you can always ask for re-review. — Indon (reply) — 15:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
